Climate Change Effects on Lake Minnetonka

How old is the earth? How long have we been recording stats?

You need to take a remedial stats class. It is not surprising that people who know the least about maths and science are the most vocal climate deniers.

Quote:

---

You need to take a remedial stats class. It is not surprising that people who know the least about maths and science are the most vocal climate deniers.

---

You should average how many of your reply’s on this website are abrasive and insulting. I’ll bet its high.

Quote:

---

You should average how many of your reply’s on this website are abrasive and insulting. I’ll bet its high.

---

justifiable derision. if people didn’t post stupid things about climate change, there would be no need to point out that they posted stupid things.

I love fishing with Lindy rigs…

CO2 is a beneficial trace gas that exists in such small quantities in our atmosphere, that the idea of it playing any significant role in determining our climate is simply silly. CO2 comprises less than half of 0.1% of our atmosphere, and only 4% of it comes from human activity. That’s 16ppm, or 1 part in every 62,500 parts of our atmosphere. CO2 is plant food, and a key component in all life on earth. Plants need CO2 to grow and produce oxygen. They feed animals (including ourselves). Animals in turn consume oxygen and plant-based foods, and exhale CO2. Without CO2, nothing could be green! This brief video showing the effect on plants of increasing atmospheric CO2 is quite striking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

Ironically, the audacity of lies about CO2 are overshadowed by the most obvious part of the Hoax. The fact is that warming is good! Throughout history, man, as well as all other living creatures, has thrived during the earth’s warm periods, and suffered and starved during the cold ones, a lesson that we’re about to be reminded of in the coming years.

Appears Yang has arrived

And if increases in atmospheric CO2 are the primary cause of warming, why, from the 1940’s through the mid 1970’s, was the earth cooling when increases in our use of fossil fuels were at their greatest?
There are millions of smart people out there who have been bombarded with this global warming nonsense for so long that they’ve actually come to believe it. The old adage that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth happens to be true, especially when the people don’t get to hear other points of view, something our mainstream media has made sure of over the last few decades.

Would you be willing to raise the arsenic level of you blood to 400ppm? If not, why not? After all it would be less than 0.1%?

Quote:

---

I love fishing with Lindy rigs…

---

I like turtles…

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I love fishing with Lindy rigs…

---

I like turtles…

---

I caught a turtle on a lindy rig.

Quote:

---

justifiable derision. if people didn’t post stupid things about climate change, there would be no need to point out that they posted stupid things.

---

Really? The original OP wasn’t even making a statement. Then you come in talking about running linear regression on the data and stats. When some one takes the time to run some simple stats, something you apparently don’t have the time to do or are incapable of doing I might point out, then you are critical of them.

Quote:

---

Would you be willing to raise the arsenic level of you blood to 400ppm? If not, why not? After all it would be less than 0.1%?

---

Falacy

See, now you’re making stuff up (I notice you do that a lot relative to this topic). My original post was in reply to a factual assertion about a trend. Do you want to take my proposed wager and make it worth my time?

Quote:

---

Would you be willing to raise the arsenic level of you blood to 400ppm? If not, why not? After all it would be less than 0.1%?

---

heck, I can barely handle the 0.1% increase of justifiable derision level in IDO threads these days

Quote:

---

See, now you’re making stuff up (I notice you do that a lot relative to this topic). My original post was in reply to a factual assertion about a trend. Do you want to take my proposed wager and make it worth my time?

---

What exactly is your proposed wager?

Googling links to articles you never read and browsing Thesaurus.com is worth your while, but trying to prove your point isn’t?

$50? I’m in. Be sure to provide everything to back up whatever data you put forth.

Hilarious that you argued there is a trend and then said it wasn’t significant (to climate global warmering).

You guys had too much coffee at tea time today.

Quote:

---

You guys had too much coffee at tea time today.

---

Tax day…

Quote:

---

You need to take a remedial stats class. It is not surprising that people who know the least about maths and science are the most vocal climate deniers.

---

Did you also check my math? If not, why? There’s a good chance it’s wrong because I did not take a remedial stats math class.

Pretty dangerous to assume what I posted is accurate.

7 out of every 3 people aren’t good at statistics…

The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations.
This is a variation of Occam’s Razor. (Logic)

However in this instance, The Hoax of man made global warming, it should read

The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated fiction.

Quote:

---

Ice out on Tonka is not the measure of climate change. You measure climate change in many ways, increased summer water temperatures, increased aquatic vegetation growing seasons and hundreds of other measures.Increasing air temperatures are causing water temperatures to rise, which impacts aquatic species as well as human health. Increased water temperature results in decreased dissolved oxygen and greater vulnerability of aquatic organisms to water pollution. Shifts of population of fish species from coldwater to warmwater species are expected to occur.

---

First of all, I’m somewhere in the middle of the climate change debate. That’s why I posted this undisputable factual data.

If climate change is occurring, I don’t believe it is having the effects that climatologists say it is.

Now, what really gets me is that this has been total discounted because it doesn’t support climate change. If its not a measure of climate change WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?

If glacier and polar ice loss is a sign of climate change, why not Lake Minnetonka?

Now I feel stupid because I got sucked in.

Quote:

---

Now I feel stupid because I got sucked in.

---

And you should.

Heres some food for thought and it goes both ways. I burn wood too heat my house and was concerned about the pollutant effects of it, if there was any. I visited a couple wood burning sites and they said that the only thing burning wood does is replace the co2 that it took to grow it when it is burned.

On the other side with the very strict rules that California has on burning and discharges from factories that they have reduced pollutants to the point where salmon and trout have returned to their native streams and are spawning, where they didn’t 30 years ago.

So whats that say, everything relevant or is it localized?

Take into consideration how long wild timber fires burned 100 years ago, maybe three to 9 months, did it hurt anything, no as its been going on for thousands of years.

Localized pollution beyond what the immediate area can withstand is another story. Take eastern coal, it has 100 times more sulfur then the coal from out west, mainly Wyoming coal which burns cleaner, thats the reason most of the streams out east aren’t fit to drink from. You can’t generalize pollutants as of now, into everythings relative.

Quote:

---

You guys had too much coffee at tea time today.

---

Tea time?
Or
TEE time?

DT

Tea time isn’t always good….

Quote:

---

Now I feel stupid because I got sucked in.

---

Me too. What a waste of energy.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Now I feel stupid because I got sucked in.

---

Me too. What a waste of energy.

---

My brain cell is tired.